Rachel McNeill (center, holding American flag) locks arms with fellow Veterans for Peace members moments before she was arrested in Boston on October 11. (Blast Staff photo/John Stephen Dwyer)

Rachel McNeill is one of 141 people arrested on October 11 when Occupy Boston briefly expand its encampment. This soft-spoken Wisconsin native is a veteran of the Iraq War who joined the Army Reserve shortly after 9/11. She was 17 years old. McNeill spent a year in Iraq, much of it in the so-called “Sunni Triangle,” and drove vehicles along a route that was called “the most dangerous road in the world.”

Now McNeill is a member of Veterans for Peace (Smedley Butler Brigade), Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, and American Women Veterans. McNeill also does work in support of “Operation Recovery: A Campaign to End the Deployment of Traumatized Troops,” a project working to assure service members with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI), and Military Sexual Trauma (MST) receive immediate support instead of being deployed back into the same situations in which trauma was inflicted. In 2008, McNeill helped organize the “Winter Soldier” event in Madison, WI. That same year she testified before the Senate Democratic Policy Committee regarding “Contractor Misconduct and the Electrocution Deaths of American Soldiers in Iraq.”

McNeill talked to Blast about the occupation, her arrest, and her reaction the injury received by USMC veteran Scott Olsen during police action against Occupy Oakland earlier this week.

BLAST: Rachel, you and Scott Olsen are both members of Veterans for Peace. How did you feel when you saw those graphic pictures of the injuries he sustained in Oakland on October 25?

RACHEL MCNEILL: I was appalled…It’s a very unfortunate situation and should never have happened. It’s really sad to see something like this…But, it’s not the first time. Another veteran who is active in various veteran’s organizations, including Warrior Writers, was seriously injured at Hofstra University outside of a presidential debate when he was trampled by a police horse. Nick Morgan’s injuries required reconstructive surgery. The most recent event has received considerable coverage, though the incident at Hofstra University went largely unnoticed by the mainstream media.

BLAST: Jean Quan, Mayor of Oakland, just announced they won’t be trying to remove Occupy Oakland again anytime soon. Is this a minor victory for the movement?

RM: I’m not sure this is something to be discussed in terms of victory. Jean Quan approved of clearing the protests. But what that would actually look like in practice…maybe that wasn’t a consideration. Now that it has played out and led to the serious injury of a veteran and the injury of other peaceful protesters, Jean Quan has had a change of heart in light of the unfortunate actions by police in carrying out an action which she approved without meaningful consideration of the consequences.

BLAST: You mentioned “Warrior Writers,” the project that brings together veterans and current service members to express themselves through artistic media. What’s your involvement with that?

RM: I am part of the Steering Committee, which was recently formed to help guide and develop the organization as programming and participation increases. I’m part of the editorial collective and am the layout/type designer for the third anthology…someone I am working with on the next Warrior Writers anthology lives near the hospital [Scott Olsen is in] and she is busy dealing with and providing space for media and other veterans to congregate. One of the members of our editorial collective is fairly involved, so we are being flexible with that as we continue working hard to release the next anthology of veterans writing out.

BLAST: Veterans for Peace is a very visible presence within Occupy Boston. What led you to become a member of an anti-war group.

Veterans For Peace describe the 10/11/2011 Police Raid on #OccupyBoston from Closed Loop-Films on Vimeo.

RM: This is not an “anti-war” group. It is a peace group, which is I why I was drawn to it. Peace is not an abstract goal goal for me. It is action. I am not reacting to war or a particular war, I am just doing what I can to be peace. Peace is healing and reconciliation, liberation, love. It is the way I try to live my life.

“Veterans are the light at the tip of the candle, illuminating the way for the whole nation. If veterans can achieve awareness, transformation, understanding, and peace, they can share with the rest of society the realities of war. And they can teach us how to make peace with ourselves and each other, so we never have to use violence to resolve conflicts again” – Thich Nhat Hahn.

I joined Veterans for Peace in March at the Saint Patty’s Day parade in Southie after learning that they had been denied a permit by the Allied War Veterans Council on the grounds that they did not want the word “peace” associated with the word “veterans.” Most veterans I know want peace…within themselves, within society, within the world. Have you read the edicts of Asoka? King Asoka conquered a neighboring kingdom by war, leading to the death and injury of hundreds of thousands of people. He realized that even those who did not participate in war were impacted by it because of their connection and love for people who suffered in its grasp. He renounced war and for the rest of his reign, he conquered by Dharma, by compassion, by upholding and embodying basic principals of respect. A lot of people realize what war is in practice after experiencing it. Anyone who has not experienced it can only speak about it and theorize in abstract terms.

BLAST: And at what point did you become involved with Occupy Boston?

RM: I was there on September 30 and have spent as much time as I can there ever since…I’ve never had a bird’s eye view because I have been a part of creating it. But whenever I walk into the camp, for the first time since I came home from combat in Ramadi in December 2006, I feel home.

BLAST: When Occupy Boston expanded the protest site on October 10, Veterans for Peace arrived in support. What happened that night and early Tuesday morning?

RM: I was at OB all day and beyond the original nightfall deadline given by police. I left to go to the VFP meeting in Cambridge After another member received a text from someone at OB that the police still planned to come, I looked at twitter on my phone and read a few of the tweets coming through on #OccupyBoston to the group. After a vote on it, we headed to OB to provide mutual support and encouragement. After arriving, we were warmly welcomed and the morale of the group seemed to improve. I suggested to the other veterans that we recite our oath and they asked me to lead it. We walked in a line around the group and I said the oath with the people’s mic. We went to the original encampment and did the same thing. When we returned to the second encampment anticipating police, the people were saying together, “We have a permit. It’s called the Constitution.” Not long after 1 a.m., the police arrived and we took our place between them and the people, continuing to sound off with our oath mixed in with the people’s mic regarding our Constitutional permit.

An Iranian F-4 (Media credit/PressTV)

Well, we knew this already, but a Wikileaks-posted cable from the US Embassy in Tehran in 1972 shows how the United States rushed to arm the Shah’s Iran, concerned over Soviet interests in the area.

The cable indicates that the state department urged the delivery of one of several squadrons of F-4 jets to Iran as soon as possible, even if that meant delaying the United States Air Force’s resupply of F-4′s.

It is a glimpse into the Cold War, a period of time quickly fading from memory, given that as of December 31, no one under age 19 will have been alive during the existence of the Soviet Union.

Further, the United States closed its Iranian embassy after the 1979 revolution and has used the Swiss embassy to deal with “American interests” since 1980. Most Blast Magazine readers have not been alive during a time in which the US had diplomatic relations with Iran.

In the leaked cable, the Iranian Minster of War, General Reza Azimi, asked the Americans to speed up the production line to accelerate the delivery of a squadron of 16 F-4E attack jets to Iran before the end of 1972.

“REQUEST REFLECTS SHAH’S INCREASING CONCERN OVER SOVIET AMBITIONS IN AREA AND ESPECIALLY THREAT SHAH SEES TO IRAN OF FRIENDSHIP TREATY UNDER CONSIDERATION BY IRAQ AND USSR. SHAH RECOGNIZES PROBLEMS THIS POSES FOR US BUT IS TURNING TO USG (United States Government) WITH THIS REQUEST TO GIVE IRAN HIGHER PRIORITY ON FA-4E PRODUCTION SCHEDULE BECAUSE HE REGARDS US (United States) AS MOST DEPENDABLE FRIEND,” the cable reads

At the end, the embassy urges the United States government to “give prompt and sympathetic attention” to the Shah of Iran’s request for the F-4E jets, from whatever sources may be available to be tapped (including deliveries to USAF).”

In total, Iran received 32 F-4D, 177 F-4E, and 16 RF-4E aircraft. The country still has 65 total American F-4 aircraft in service in the Iranian Air Force. An Iranian F-4 crashed due to “technical failure” in August. The pilots survived by ejecting, according to PressTV, an English-language state-funded media organization in Tehran.

The F-4 was a versatile jet with a distinguished record, shooting down more than 100 aircraft in the Vietnam War. It has both air-to-air and ground attack abilities. The F-4D and F-4E were exported widely and featured an internal M61 Vulcan cannon. The jet can travel at speeds above Mach 2.

The American-armed Iranian Imperial Air Force was considered second only to the Israelis in the Middle East, and it was a rival to the Soviets during the Cold War. The Iranians also purchased F-5 fighters and the legendary F-14 Tomcat.

Veteran advocate Tammy Duckworth served in Iraq as an Army helicopter pilot and received combat injuries that cost her both legs. She ran for an Illinois congressional seat in 2006, spoke at the 2008 Democratic National Convention in Denver, and was appointed last year as Assistant Secretary for Public and Intergovernmental Affairs in the Department of Veterans Affairs.

She answered questions Tuesday about Veterans Affairs via podcast from the White House.

Blast asked: “How will the VA handle the mental health needs of veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan?”

She responded:

“Mental health needs of veterans is a really important issue and one of the things that I mentioned earlier that we’re doing at VA is we’re screening 100% of our Iraq and Afghanistan veterans when they come through the doors of VA. Even if you come in for a sprained ankle, your first time through a VA facility you will get screened for traumatic brain injury and post-traumatic stress. That’s really critical because many people don’t even know that they’re suffering from post traumatic stress.

We’re also expanding services across the country. I talked about the mental health hotline. We also have a chat room. We developed the chat room because we realized that a lot of our vets are still in the service. They’re still deployed. They need to be able to talk to a counselor even while they’re down range in Iraq or Afghanistan. So we have the chatroom. It’s “suicide prevention.lifeline.org.” And they can actually access that. We made both available to family members because a lot of times the vets themselves are in denial, and they’re not asking for help, but it’s mom or dad or wife or husband or child that actually sees the symptoms and needs help, so they can call in as well.”

According to the National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI), over 100,000 combat veterans sought help for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and other mental health problems between 2001 and 2007. They also say that the youngest veterans–those aged 18 to 24 years–have the greatest risk of mental health diagnoses.

According to a study this year in the American Journal of Public Health, nearly 40 percent of Afghanistan and Iraq veterans receiving health care from VA hospitals suffer from mental illness.

1. Earlier this week, when asked how ordinary people can participate in Veterans Day, Tammy Duckworth of the Department of Veterans Affairs said “Number one, you can thank a vet for their service.”
2. Officially, it’s “Veterans Day,” no apostrophe. The government — not retail stores — has the last word in this matter.
3. Veterans Day was created by Dwight Eisenhower in 1954 due in part to the efforts of Alfred King, a shoe salesman from Emporia, Kansas.
4. Veterans Day replaced “Armistice Day,” a commemoration proclaimed by Woodrow Wilson in 1919 and made an annual holiday by Calvin Coolidge in 1938.
5. Armistice Day was “dedicated to the cause of world peace” but was more popularly about commemorating the heroes of World War One.
6. Veterans Day is November 11 because the armistice between the Allies and Germany took effect at eleven o’clock in the morning on the eleventh day of the eleventh month of 1918.
7. The “Uniform Monday Holiday Act” of 1971 moved Veterans Day to the fourth Monday of October everywhere but Mississippi and South Dakota.
8. In response to popular sentiment, Veterans Day was moved back to November 11 in 1978.
9. Veterans Day honors all who have served in the armed services, living and dead, in wartime and in peace. It’s distinct from Memorial Day which was specifically created to commemorate Americans who have died in military service.
10. Veterans Day especially shouldn’t be confused with Patriots’ Day (note the apostrophe) as the latter celebrates just those involved with the Battles of Lexington and Concord. It’s only recognized in Massachusetts (where it is becoming better know as “Marathon Monday”), Maine (once part of Massachusetts), and, for some reason, Wisconsin.

The opening credits to “Buried” are misleading. As sparse, drum-heavy music plays, and viewers follow a cartoon line down, down, down, they are being set up — for an homage to Hitchcock, for a somewhat conventional thriller, for an exciting yet ominous experience. But here there is no spiral staircase, no convention, and excitement is replaced by, at times crippling, fear.

Ominous, though, ominous they got.

Paul Conroy (the surprisingly good Ryan Reynolds) is a contracted truck driver in Iraq, and as the movie opens we find him gagged, bound, and “Buried” in a coffin. He has nothing but a lighter and a cell phone. Reynolds is the only actor who appears in the film (although many are credited and have speaking roles), and most of the time we are only inches away from his face. The entire 94 minutes of this exercise in claustrophobia depict Paul’s struggle to find help, fighting both a bureaucratic nightmare and a crappy wireless signal.

Director Rodrigo Cortes somehow manages to make the film engaging throughout. The pacing is brilliant, and he tries to balance the overwhelmingly intense subject of the film with some humor, although I found myself feeling guilty for laughing at Reynolds’ helpless character, even though it was clear I was supposed to.

And this is where the film falters: the experience of watching “Buried” can only be described as grueling. The lack of music, the ever-present sound of labored breathing, the extended periods spent in complete darkness, and the screams of terror Conroy elicits create a tangible discomfort that drove me to spend half the movie gripping my knees in the fetal position.

Combined with the film’s heavy-handed political commentary — which was necessary but clunky — this feeling of complete helplessness took away any enjoyment I could have had in watching the film. Cortes accomplished something great with this film by testing the limits of a conventional thriller, and in that aspect, it could be described as an intriguing study.

If you ask me if this is a good movie, the answer is yes: Reynolds is superb, and despite a few missteps, the directing is almost mind-boggling. But if you ask me if I liked this movie, the answer is even easier: no.

Now that U.S. troops have transferred security responsibilities in Iraq over to local forces, Americans can assess the damage from a less involved perspective.

A BBC World News America/Harris Poll asked Americans if they believe that Iraq is better off now than before the U.S. invasion, and whether the U.S. is safer because of the war.

Sixty-two per cent of men said Iraq is now safer, while 51 per cent of women believe the same. Interestingly, 49 per cent of those polled say the war was worth fighting for. The Iraq war. Worth it. Pretty astonishing.

Only 39 per cent say the war made America safer though, 10 per cent less than the number of those who think it was worth it.

So if we are to draw anything from this poll, it is that the majority of those polled don’t think the war was worth it and don’t think it made the country safer. The numbers are close on whether it was worth it, so the the people polled are obviously divided.

A lot of this division likely has to do with confusion. If you ask people what the war was for, what it was about, why we fought it, you’d likely get different answers from different people. In past wars, like Vietnam, the answer was definitive (even if those asked thought the war was ill-advised), and people likely had variations of the same answer.

The Iraq war, is more abstract, there is no definition to it. To keep America safe, yes, to control the spread of Islamic extremists, yes. But how? Iraq did not attack the U.S. and the war of haste there, after the dust settled post-9/11, has further alienated the U.S. from the very people it needed to have on its side in order to protect itself.

Dropping bombs on civilian neighbourhoods and shooting down civilians from helicopters will not make the U.S. safer. And according to the majority of those polled, it hasn’t.

Source: White House Media Affairs Office

THE PRESIDENT: Good evening. Tonight, I’d like to talk to you about the end of our combat mission in Iraq, the ongoing security challenges we face, and the need to rebuild our nation here at home.

I know this historic moment comes at a time of great uncertainty for many Americans. We’ve now been through nearly a decade of war. We’ve endured a long and painful recession. And sometimes in the midst of these storms, the future that we’re trying to build for our nation — a future of lasting peace and long-term prosperity — may seem beyond our reach.

But this milestone should serve as a reminder to all Americans that the future is ours to shape if we move forward with confidence and commitment. It should also serve as a message to the world that the United States of America intends to sustain and strengthen our leadership in this young century.

From this desk, seven and a half years ago, President Bush announced the beginning of military operations in Iraq. Much has changed since that night. A war to disarm a state became a fight against an insurgency. Terrorism and sectarian warfare threatened to tear Iraq apart. Thousands of Americans gave their lives; tens of thousands have been wounded. Our relations abroad were strained. Our unity at home was tested.

These are the rough waters encountered during the course of one of America’s longest wars. Yet there has been one constant amidst these shifting tides. At every turn, America’s men and women in uniform have served with courage and resolve. As Commander-in-Chief, I am incredibly proud of their service. And like all Americans, I’m awed by their sacrifice, and by the sacrifices of their families.

The Americans who have served in Iraq completed every mission they were given. They defeated a regime that had terrorized its people. Together with Iraqis and coalition partners who made huge sacrifices of their own, our troops fought block by block to help Iraq seize the chance for a better future. They shifted tactics to protect the Iraqi people, trained Iraqi Security Forces, and took out terrorist leaders. Because of our troops and civilians — and because of the resilience of the Iraqi people — Iraq has the opportunity to embrace a new destiny, even though many challenges remain.

So tonight, I am announcing that the American combat mission in Iraq has ended. Operation Iraqi Freedom is over, and the Iraqi people now have lead responsibility for the security of their country.

This was my pledge to the American people as a candidate for this office. Last February, I announced a plan that would bring our combat brigades out of Iraq, while redoubling our efforts to strengthen Iraq’s Security Forces and support its government and people.

That’s what we’ve done. We’ve removed nearly 100,000 U.S. troops from Iraq. We’ve closed or transferred to the Iraqis hundreds of bases. And we have moved millions of pieces of equipment out of Iraq.

This completes a transition to Iraqi responsibility for their own security. U.S. troops pulled out of Iraq’s cities last summer, and Iraqi forces have moved into the lead with considerable skill and commitment to their fellow citizens. Even as Iraq continues to suffer terrorist attacks, security incidents have been near the lowest on record since the war began. And Iraqi forces have taken the fight to al Qaeda, removing much of its leadership in Iraqi-led operations.

This year also saw Iraq hold credible elections that drew a strong turnout. A caretaker administration is in place as Iraqis form a government based on the results of that election. Tonight, I encourage Iraq’s leaders to move forward with a sense of urgency to form an inclusive government that is just, representative, and accountable to the Iraqi people. And when that government is in place, there should be no doubt: The Iraqi people will have a strong partner in the United States. Our combat mission is ending, but our commitment to Iraq’s future is not.

Going forward, a transitional force of U.S. troops will remain in Iraq with a different mission: advising and assisting Iraq’s Security Forces, supporting Iraqi troops in targeted counterterrorism missions, and protecting our civilians. Consistent with our agreement with the Iraqi government, all U.S. troops will leave by the end of next year. As our military draws down, our dedicated civilians — diplomats, aid workers, and advisors — are moving into the lead to support Iraq as it strengthens its government, resolves political disputes, resettles those displaced by war, and builds ties with the region and the world. That’s a message that Vice President Biden is delivering to the Iraqi people through his visit there today.

This new approach reflects our long-term partnership with Iraq — one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect. Of course, violence will not end with our combat mission. Extremists will continue to set off bombs, attack Iraqi civilians and try to spark sectarian strife. But ultimately, these terrorists will fail to achieve their goals. Iraqis are a proud people. They have rejected sectarian war, and they have no interest in endless destruction. They understand that, in the end, only Iraqis can resolve their differences and police their streets. Only Iraqis can build a democracy within their borders. What America can do, and will do, is provide support for the Iraqi people as both a friend and a partner.

Ending this war is not only in Iraq’s interest — it’s in our own. The United States has paid a huge price to put the future of Iraq in the hands of its people. We have sent our young men and women to make enormous sacrifices in Iraq, and spent vast resources abroad at a time of tight budgets at home. We’ve persevered because of a belief we share with the Iraqi people — a belief that out of the ashes of war, a new beginning could be born in this cradle of civilization. Through this remarkable chapter in the history of the United States and Iraq, we have met our responsibility. Now, it’s time to turn the page.

As we do, I’m mindful that the Iraq war has been a contentious issue at home. Here, too, it’s time to turn the page. This afternoon, I spoke to former President George W. Bush. It’s well known that he and I disagreed about the war from its outset. Yet no one can doubt President Bush’s support for our troops, or his love of country and commitment to our security. As I’ve said, there were patriots who supported this war, and patriots who opposed it. And all of us are united in appreciation for our servicemen and women, and our hopes for Iraqis’ future.

The greatness of our democracy is grounded in our ability to move beyond our differences, and to learn from our experience as we confront the many challenges ahead. And no challenge is more essential to our security than our fight against al Qaeda.

Americans across the political spectrum supported the use of force against those who attacked us on 9/11. Now, as we approach our 10th year of combat in Afghanistan, there are those who are understandably asking tough questions about our mission there. But we must never lose sight of what’s at stake. As we speak, al Qaeda continues to plot against us, and its leadership remains anchored in the border regions of Afghanistan and Pakistan. We will disrupt, dismantle and defeat al Qaeda, while preventing Afghanistan from again serving as a base for terrorists. And because of our drawdown in Iraq, we are now able to apply the resources necessary to go on offense. In fact, over the last 19 months, nearly a dozen al Qaeda leaders — and hundreds of al Qaeda’s extremist allies — have been killed or captured around the world.

Within Afghanistan, I’ve ordered the deployment of additional troops who — under the command of General David Petraeus — are fighting to break the Taliban’s momentum.
As with the surge in Iraq, these forces will be in place for a limited time to provide space for the Afghans to build their capacity and secure their own future. But, as was the case in Iraq, we can’t do for Afghans what they must ultimately do for themselves. That’s why we’re training Afghan Security Forces and supporting a political resolution to Afghanistan’s problems. And next August, we will begin a transition to Afghan responsibility. The pace of our troop reductions will be determined by conditions on the ground, and our support for Afghanistan will endure. But make no mistake: This transition will begin — because open-ended war serves neither our interests nor the Afghan people’s.

Indeed, one of the lessons of our effort in Iraq is that American influence around the world is not a function of military force alone. We must use all elements of our power — including our diplomacy, our economic strength, and the power of America’s example — to secure our interests and stand by our allies. And we must project a vision of the future that’s based not just on our fears, but also on our hopes — a vision that recognizes the real dangers that exist around the world,
but also the limitless possibilities of our time.

Today, old adversaries are at peace, and emerging democracies are potential partners. New markets for our goods stretch from Asia to the Americas. A new push for peace in the Middle East will begin here tomorrow. Billions of young people want to move beyond the shackles of poverty and conflict. As the leader of the free world, America will do more than just defeat on the battlefield those who offer hatred and destruction — we will also lead among those who are willing to work together to expand freedom and opportunity for all people.

Now, that effort must begin within our own borders. Throughout our history, America has been willing to bear the burden of promoting liberty and human dignity overseas, understanding its links to our own liberty and security. But we have also understood that our nation’s strength and influence abroad must be firmly anchored in our prosperity at home. And the bedrock of that prosperity must be a growing middle class.

Unfortunately, over the last decade, we’ve not done what’s necessary to shore up the foundations of our own prosperity. We spent a trillion dollars at war, often financed by borrowing from overseas. This, in turn, has short-changed investments in our own people, and contributed to record deficits. For too long, we have put off tough decisions on everything from our manufacturing base to our energy policy to education reform. As a result, too many middle-class families find themselves working harder for less, while our nation’s long-term competitiveness is put at risk.

And so at this moment, as we wind down the war in Iraq, we must tackle those challenges at home with as much energy, and grit, and sense of common purpose as our men and women in uniform who have served abroad. They have met every test that they faced. Now, it’s our turn. Now, it’s our responsibility to honor them by coming together, all of us, and working to secure the dream that so many generations have fought for — the dream that a better life awaits anyone who is willing to work for it and reach for it.

Our most urgent task is to restore our economy, and put the millions of Americans who have lost their jobs back to work. To strengthen our middle class, we must give all our children the education they deserve, and all our workers the skills that they need to compete in a global economy. We must jumpstart industries that create jobs, and end our dependence on foreign oil. We must unleash the innovation that allows new products to roll off our assembly lines, and nurture the ideas that spring from our entrepreneurs. This will be difficult. But in the days to come, it must be our central mission as a people, and my central responsibility as President.

Part of that responsibility is making sure that we honor our commitments to those who have served our country with such valor. As long as I am President, we will maintain the finest fighting force that the world has ever known, and we will do whatever it takes to serve our veterans as well as they have served us. This is a sacred trust. That’s why we’ve already made one of the largest increases in funding for veterans in decades. We’re treating the signature wounds of today’s wars — post-traumatic stress disorder and traumatic brain injury — while providing the health care and benefits that all of our veterans have earned. And we’re funding a Post-9/11 GI Bill that helps our veterans and their families pursue the dream of a college education. Just as the GI Bill helped those who fought World War II — including my grandfather — become the backbone of our middle class, so today’s servicemen and women must have the chance to apply their gifts to expand the American economy. Because part of ending a war responsibly is standing by those who have fought it.

Two weeks ago, America’s final combat brigade in Iraq — the Army’s Fourth Stryker Brigade — journeyed home in the pre-dawn darkness. Thousands of soldiers and hundreds of vehicles made the trip from Baghdad, the last of them passing into Kuwait in the early morning hours. Over seven years before, American troops and coalition partners had fought their way across similar highways, but this time no shots were fired. It was just a convoy of brave Americans, making their way home.

Of course, the soldiers left much behind. Some were teenagers when the war began. Many have served multiple tours of duty, far from families who bore a heroic burden of their own, enduring the absence of a husband’s embrace or a mother’s kiss. Most painfully, since the war began, 55 members of the Fourth Stryker Brigade made the ultimate sacrifice — part of over 4,400 Americans who have given their lives in Iraq. As one staff sergeant said, "I know that to my brothers in arms who fought and died, this day would probably mean a lot."

Those Americans gave their lives for the values that have lived in the hearts of our people for over two centuries. Along with nearly 1.5 million Americans who have served in Iraq, they fought in a faraway place for people they never knew. They stared into the darkest of human creations — war — and helped the Iraqi people seek the light of peace.

In an age without surrender ceremonies, we must earn victory through the success of our partners and the strength of our own nation. Every American who serves joins an unbroken line of heroes that stretches from Lexington to Gettysburg; from Iwo Jima to Inchon; from Khe Sanh to Kandahar — Americans who have fought to see that the lives of our children are better than our own. Our troops are the steel in our ship of state. And though our nation may be travelling through rough waters, they give us confidence that our course is true, and that beyond the pre-dawn darkness, better days lie ahead.

Thank you. May God bless you. And may God bless the United States of America, and all who serve her.

About a year ago I did an interview with a prominent Canadian journalist named Olivia Ward. Months before the interview she had written an article that named the 10 worst countries in which a woman could live. Our interview focuses on the troubles women face in various countries around the world, namely in Iraq.

I asked her about the situation in Iraq and how the lives of women have changed since and as a result of the American invasion. We also talked about the Democratic Republic of Congo, Pakistan and the then-recent UN Security Council declaration regarding sexual violence being a war crime.

Take a listen, Olivia is a seasoned Canadian journalist and a respected authority figure on global women’s issues.

Private Jhanner Tello, 29, died in Baghdad on Dec. 10 as a result of injuries sustained during a non-combat incident, according to a Fort Hood news release.

Tello, who was from Los Angeles, joined the military in 2005 as a helicopter repairman. He was then assigned to the 3rd Aviation Support Battalion, 227th Aviation Regiment, 1st Air Cavalry Brigade and 1st Cavalry Division. He had been at Fort Hood since Nov. 2005.

In Oct. 2006 Tello was deployed to Iraq. He returned from duty in Jan. 2008, but was deployed for a second round of duty this April through to his death last week.

Tello is a highly decorated soldier. He was awarded, among other medals, the Army Achievement Medal, the Army Good Conduct Medal, the Afghanistan Campaign Medal, the Iraq Campaign Medal, the Global War on Terrorism Service Medal and the Army Service Ribbon.

The circumstances surrounding his death are currently under investigation.

ROME — By clicking on Baghdad’s Virtual Museum of Iraq website one can admire a selection of Sumerian, Babylonian, Assyrian, and Islamic archaeological finds preserved on two floors of the building designed in 1937 by the German architect Werner March and looted in 2003.

Today’s Iraq, the Asian region between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, was called Mesopotamia by the ancient Greeks.

After the 5th Millennium B.C., very rich and powerful civilizations developed in this fertile and luxuriant land, leaving splendid vestiges of their glorious history.

Along the banks of the rivers and their tributaries, Sumerians, Accadians, Babylonians, and Assyrians founded cities such as Uruk, Ur, Lagash, Nippur, Babylon, Khorsabad, and Nineveh, surrounded by walls and with temples and monumental palaces inside them. The region was later conquered by the Persians, then the Seleucids, the Parthians, the Romans, and finally in the 7th Century A.D. by the Arabs.

The winged bulls of the Assyrian palatine palaces continue to narrate a part of Mesopotamia’s history, as do monumental reliefs, funerary objects in royal burial places, and the colossal statue of the god Abu, all looted, damaged and destroyed in the museum during the plundering and pillaging of April 2003. These precious marble, alabaster, ivory and golden testimonies of Assyrian-Babylonian civilization were recovered, restored, and replaced inside this museum and portrays the history, from the prehistoric to Islamic times, of the land between the two rivers, the cradle of civilization, of writing, the wheel, the first code of laws and the first to learn how to measure astronomical time.

Google recently announced that very soon, at the beginning of 2010, 14,000 photographs of ancient finds from the National Museum in Baghdad, relics of the Babylonian, Assyrian, and Sumerian civilizations, will be available online.

Using the Internet to make available to everyone part of the Fertile Crescent’s immense legacy is a commendable initiative.

All this thanks to the Italian National Research Council project. (Known as CNR: Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche.) It’s a “Made in Italy” initiative.

Do you remember that Iraqi guy who threw his shoes at President Bush? Remember how he was lauded as a national hero? Well, now he’s going to prison.

Muntader al-Zaidi, a journalist, was sentenced Thursday to three years in prison for the shoe throwing ordeal, charged with‚ aggression‚ towards a visiting head of state, a crime that carries a maximum 15 year jail sentence in Iraq.

Zaidi pleaded not guilty before Judge Abdulamir Hassan al-Rubaie, arguing that in that one moment, he was overcome with a brutal passion as he remembered the scores of civilians that had been killed in his home land, all because of Bush.

“I am innocent. It was a natural reaction to the crime of occupation…In that moment, I saw nothing but Bush, and I felt the blood of the innocents flowing under his feet while he was smiling that smile” he said at the hearing, according to the New York Times.

The trial was set to take place a while ago, but was postponed while the judge took time to decide whether or not Bush’s trip to Iraq was an official visit. Since Bush spoke in the Green Zone which is controlled by American Military, it could be argued that his visit was not official. The judge however decided that the‚ visit was official.

Zaidi was tried, oddly, in Iraq’s Central Criminal Court, a court set aside for major cases including terrorism. Zaidi’s lawyers – all 18 of them – said they would appeal the decision.

As Zaidi, who has been in prison since the incident, approached the courthouse before his hearing, scores of followers greeted him outside chanting “hero.”

It’s clear the Iraqi people don’t like the ruling.

This Iraqi journalist takes off both his shoes and whips them right at Bush during a press conference in Iraq. Before he hurled them, he yelled “this is a farewell kiss, you dog. This is from the widows, the orphans and those who were killed in Iraq.” He was arrested right after the toss.

Props to Bush for dodging those things like a pro.

Shoes are pretty taboo in the Arab world. ‚ People won’t even cross their legs in an ankle-on-knee fashion in a public place, for fear of insulting the person beside them.

There was a photo of Bush a while ago, in an Iraqi city, where someone had placed two shoes at the top of his head to indicate devil horns.

And now, experts are telling the public “throwing a shoe at someone’s face is considered an insult in Islam.” As opposed to in America, where it is a sign of affection.

So El Presidente, for Iraqi’s (and some Americans, too), this guy is a hero. People are protesting for his release.

Palestinian journalists are now asking who will be brave enough to hurl a shoe at Condoleezza Rice. ‚ We’ll see if she can duck as well as Bush.

Today I had the chance to interview Olivia Ward, a foreign affairs reporter for the Toronto Star.‚  The interview was absolutely enlightening.

Foreign affairs reporters have to be the coolest journalists out there.‚  They get to travel around the world covering the most newsworthy events.‚  She’s covered everything from this past U.S. election to human rights issues in Africa and Asia.

I talked to her about a whole host of things, but focused mainly on women’s rights.‚  She’s one of the most knowledgeable people I’ve ever spoken to, especially in regards to the the global standing of women.

It was a radio interview so I can’t really provide a transcript but I’ll give you the gist.

She wrote an article earlier this year ranking the 10 worst countries in which a woman can live.‚  On that list is Iraq, a country that before the U.S. invasion had some of the most liberal women’s rights views in the entire Arab world, and one of the highest female literacy rates among Arab countries.

Now, they have one of the worst.‚  Women are persecuted, raped at schools and some are completely segregated and socially subtracted.

She was talking about the situation there and it was pretty unbelievable.‚  It’s stuff you don’t really read about in the news.‚  It’s hardcore.‚  Stuff I couldn’t even imagine.

She told me about a meeting she had with two Congolese women who told her about some of the terrible things that take place in the Democratic Republic of Congo.

She had to pause, she couldn’t even put it in words.‚  Women are absolutely mangled in that country, some are even used as tactics of war.‚  Opposing forces will take women and sexually violate them as an act of war.

The U.N. recently declared sexual violence as an act of war, but what will come of that remains to be seen.

The bad thing is, the women can’t even report the rapes and violations.‚  They have no authority, no power.‚  They go unnoticed.

I’ve only ever read about things like this.‚  I knew they were happening but to hear them from someone who’s seen the aftermath first hand was a whole other thing.

The world is indeed watching today.

Despite the United States recent economic woes, there is no doubt amongst serious observers that the country is still, by far the most powerful nation in the world. The United States military budget “" which, I think it is fair to say, gets quite a bit of use “" is astronomical. The U.S. accounts almost half of the world’s military spending, with the FY 2009 budget allocating more than $650 billion. To put this in perspective, the next highest spender is the United Kingdom with just over $50 billion. And the U.S. figures do not count the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan which are paid for with supplemental bills and have cost the nation hundreds of billions more over the last five years.

Further, the world economy, for better or worse (worse is the popular answer in 2008), is directly dependent on the U.S economy. Even though China, for example, continues to grow, they are only able to do so by sending 80 percent of their exports to the U.S. Now, as American consumers are becoming thrifty, or broke (or both), Chinese growth is in trouble.

Russia “" China’s partner in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, which many see as a blossoming counter to the US and NATO “" is now losing out on all the revenues that they were getting from $147 barrels of oil. And this drop in oil occurred, at least in part, due to the massive deflation that has occurred since the US economy really hit the skids in September. Venezuela and Iran, two other oil-rich nations with hostile relations with the U.S, are facing the same problems as oil prices go down.

So why is this relevant to the 2008 election? It is a reminder of how important this election, and American policy in general, is to other parts of the world.

In Israel, for example, the right has expressed fears over an Obama presidency. While Obama has said all of the right things, and spoke in front of AIPAC when he finally won the primary, some in Israel are not sure he will be 1) as aggressive on Iran as a McCain or Bush Administration or 2) as willing to continue America’s unconditional (and totally unique) package in aid, which is at $3 billion, the most in the world. This is why the right started singing the “Obama-is-anti-Israel” tune when McCain fell sharply behind (as did Hillary Clinton when she was gasping for anything at the tail end of the divisive primary, which gives you a sense of how predictably low politicians can go when in trouble).

It is a fairly empty tale. Obama has toed the Party line with Israel, pledging continued and increased aid, and insisting that Iran poses a grave threat, despite the fact that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has said the opposite.

Nonetheless, this election is watched with great interest from the Israeli right. To follow the coverage in Israel, I recommend, Haaretz, which is widely viewed as the “New York Times of Israel.”

Another country that must be watching with watchful eyes in Pakistan, especially given Obama’s expressed a willingness to bomb the country (which President Bush actually did recently).

Interestingly, Iraqis and U.S. soldiers may have less at stake that one might think. While Obama ran in the primary with anti-war rhetoric , his staff has acknowledged to the Wall Street Journal that he will leave around 35 “" 45 thousands troops in the country. Given that a similar draw down is likely under a McCain Administration (though the exact timeline could vary), it appears that the War in Iraq will continue in a lesser fashion, no matter who wins. Still, if anyone wants to read an English language Iraqi newspaper, visit Azzaman in English.

Iranians, too, must be watching with great interest. While both McCain and Obama are willing to talk tough on Iran, Obama has a far more moderate (supported by many Republicans from the Bush I days, such as James Baker and Collin Powell) and reasonable stance on engaging in diplomacy. To read Iranian media visit Press TV and the Islamic Republic News Agency (both state-owned, for what its worth).

And of course, every country has a stake in the U.S. economy. As I listed above, the ramifications of the economic crisis are indeed global, and countries have been scrambling with bailout and stimulus packages, request for aid from the (US controlled) International Monetary Fund and the nationalizing of some banks.

Here, world public opinion is clear: Obama is the favorite for most of the world, which has grown deeply skeptical of U.S. economic policies, and gives most of the blame to Republicans.

Some other foreign news outlets:

The Daily Star (Lebanon)

Russia Today (Russia)

The Independent (United Kingdom)

Dar al Hayet (Saudi Arabia )

]]> http://blastmagazine.com/the-news/the-world-is-watching/feed/ 0